favorite gunner position in a b 17

favorite b 17 position what would you want to be in the most?

  • Ball

    Votes: 3 10.3%

  • Waist

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • Tail

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Nose

    Votes: 3 10.3%

  • Top

    Votes: 13 44.8%
  • Total voters
    29

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

tyrodtom said:
Top gunner- can't think of anything yet, but there's gotta be something bad about it.
Click to expand...

Were most of the LW attacks from underneath / rear / front ?
Maybe the Top gunner was the safest place? 'safe' being a relative term of course.
Cheers
John
 
Last edited:
Okay, I promise to post the info tomorrow on Luftwaffe favorite attack directions, B-17 casualty rates by positoin and B-17 gunner accuracy rankings by 8th AF. I know I have it somewhere. But tyrodtom, I'm not liking the rear gunner position for the same reason I wouldn't like the claustrophobic ball turret position... comfort. If I recall correctly the tail gunner position is a combination small seat/bench that you kneel on with your knees. Not a seat exactly, but a chiropractic form of corporal punishment. That sounds like hell no matter how much padding they put on that bench.
 
I forgot about the tail gunners sort of bicycle seat-kneepad sort of position, had to be pretty uncomfortable after hours kneeling in the cold.
And the ball turret gunners position, with you cojones presented to the world, maybe that's what the armor on the ball turret was to try and make up for, that very psycologically vunerable position the ball turret gunner was in.
 
The only two areas of armor aboard a B-17 would be the ball and the glass plate in the tail-gunner's position...and even then, this was in the later Cheyenne version...otherwise, you had aluminum skin and the occasional structural rib to protect you from MG. and cannon rounds (not to mention flak)
 
Crew Positions

By way of a comparison and not a thread de-railer...have a quick look at the gun positions of a Lancaster compared to a Flying Fortress.
I cannot help wondering why so many B17's were shot down when they so heavily armed.

Tail end charlie was the main defensive position of the Lancaster.
What do you guys consider to be the 'main defensive position' on a B17?

Cheers
John
 
I think it would be the tail gunner also. If the Luftwaffe pilots knew a B-17's tailgun position was out, no other gunner position could fire on them, he could stay above the ball turret's line of fire, but behind that tall tail , so the upper gunner couldn't fire, and neither waist gun could fire close to straight back.
As long as he stayed in that cone that could only be fired on by the tailgunner, he could stay back there and fire at his leisure, no deflection problems for him to figure out either.
The only fire he'd have to worry about is the other B-17s.
 

That makes sense Tom. I hadn't thought about the top turret not being to bear on a rear target.
Cheers
John
 
GrauGeist said:
You do know that the nose position was primarily the Luftwaffe's favorite target also, right?
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. The "12 O'Clock High" position was used but it took nerves of steel and you only had about 3 seconds of firing time. Towards the end of the war even the raw pilots wouldn't try it. I think the most used area to attack by the LW was the rear - from the early attacks to Sturmbock attacks and from Gefechsverband ( I think thats how its spelled!) and jet attacks to even the once used ramming attacks on 7 April 1945 where they were told to fly from underneath and clip the tail.
 
Most of that armor is set up to protect from rear attacks, could actually make things worse if the attack's from the front.
I wonder is armor placement was changed on the later models, when frontal attacks became more common ?
 
There is some interesting data at 8th Air Force Combat Losses in World War II ETO Against the AXIS Powers on casualties by crew postion. this data seems to indicte that the top turret was the safest position in the ship. High POW numbers indicate (to me anyway) ability to survive serious damage to ship and ability to safely bailout. Low WIA numbers speak for themselves. I don't think KIA numbers inform the discussion because of instances where ships go down with entire crews.
 

I believe the Frontal attack required much more pilot skill. Attack from the rear allowed attacks in Groups too.

Miltary History Visualised has done some work on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
nuuumannn
Favorite Ace
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Juha3
J
M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
_PabloSniper_
  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
6K
Thumpalumpacus
Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register